LawCite Search |
LawCite Markup Tool |
Help |
Feedback
Law Cite |
Case Name | Citation(s) | Court | Jurisdiction | Date † | Full Text | Citation Index | |
Law v- Deamley |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1950 | LexisNexis |
|
||
Day v William Hill (Park Lane) Ltd |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1949 | LexisNexis / Westlaw |
|
||
; Dismore v Milton |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1938 | LexisNexis |
|
||
); or the Statute of Limitations (Murray v Secretary for India |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1931 |
|
|||
Conquer v Boot |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1928 | LexisNexis / Westlaw |
|
||
Moore v Lawson |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1915 | LexisNexis |
|
||
); nor is the fact that the Statute of Frauds (which is merely a provision as to evidence) might be a bar to the claim (Fraser v Pape |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1904 |
|
|||
Humphrys v Polak |
[1901] UKLawRpKQB 130; |
United Kingdom | 12 Jun 1901 | CommonLII |
|
||
South Hetton Coal Co v Haswell, Shotton and Easington Coal and Coke Co |
[1898] UKLawRpCh 39; |
Court of Chancery | United Kingdom | 9 Mar 1898 | CommonLII |
|
|
Farnham v Milward & Co |
[1895] UKLawRpCh 152; |
Court of Chancery | United Kingdom | 10 Aug 1895 | CommonLII |
|
|
Process of the Court (per Jeune, P , in Young v Holloway |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1895 |
|
|||
Bean v Flower |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1895 |
|
|||
Davey v Bentinck |
[1892] UKLawRpKQB 216; |
United Kingdom | 7 Dec 1892 | CommonLII |
|
||
Dreyfus v Peruvian Guano Co |
[1889] UKLawRpCh 36; |
Court of Chancery | United Kingdom | 27 Feb 1889 | CommonLII |
|
|
; Wing v Burn |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1904 | LexisNexis |
|
||
); or if relief be asked on a ground which is no ground for such relief (Johnston v J |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1904 |
|